Consent is not the be-all and end-all

[MagicMix]

Following on from the thread about the impact of porn and other threads about the implausibility of consent to brutal practices.

The focus on sexual consent in feminism in recent years has been positive to a certain extent but I think we have lost nuance when we consider consent to be the key to sexual ethics.

Consent is not a green light for whatever you want, it is the bare minimum. Sex without consent is obviously very wrong (rape or sexual assault). And most feminists have at least some understanding that coerced consent is a problem and does not equate to true consent, although some seem unable to understand that paying someone is clear-cut coercion.

But we have to go further. Consent does not make everything all right. There are some things that can never be all right and the anti-kink-shaming 'sex-positive' thinking that refuses to condemn anything as long as someone is getting sexually aroused by it has led us down some very dark paths.

If you can stomach it, here is an article about a woman who claims to be sexually aroused by being waterboarded.
www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/waterboarding-kink-sex-bdsm-torture-779066/
Now I don't believe her and my personal opinion is that the M is BDSM is a form of self-harm, but really that is not the main point. The point is, somebody did that to her because she asked for it. People are quite literally torturing other people in the pursuit of sexual pleasure and we are expected to be non-judgmental.

The point is that the S in BDSM is sick and wrong. It was said on the other thread that we need to bring back kink shaming. Yes a thousand times. They can call me a prude, frigid, accuse me of being in a moral panic, I don't care. If someone gets sexual pleasure from hurting people, torturing people, acting out scenarios that put them in the role of rapist or slave-owner, I think that person has an unhealthy, dangerous sexuality and should seek help. It should not be accepted uncritically as harmless just because there was consent.

To be crystal clear, I am criticising sexual sadists, not masochists. If someone gets sexual pleasure from hurting people, torturing people, acting out scenarios that put them in the role of rapist or slave-owner, I think that person has an unhealthy, dangerous sexuality and should seek help.

I think sexual masochism is unhealthy just as seeking out other kinds of self-harm is unhealthy, but sadism is cruelty and I do not believe anyone who actively enjoys being cruel is a good person. We easily recognise that revelling in cruelty in non-sexual situations is not a characteristic of a good person. I do not think adding sex to the equation changes anything at all. I do not think the choice to harm someone else for your own sexual gratification is a morally defensible choice.

H1dinginSight
submitting to my boyfriend is the only time I’m entirely without responsibilities. For me it’s a place of calm and freedom.

Gosh. Why don't you just be a Surrendered wife and skip the pain? Take up sky diving together if you fancy a bit of the fear factor? Go on a retreat for a little calm and freedom.

Now I think about it when I had a lovely spa day and the beautician scrubbed my skin and told me what to do at each stage explained what she was doing and instructed me when to undress/wrap myself in a towel, go into the shower to wash off the scrub I also experienced calm and freedom. It was lovely. And not at all painful. 🤗☺️

Iused2BanOptimist
Gosh. Why don't you just be a Surrendered wife and skip the pain? Take up sky diving together if you fancy a bit of the fear factor?

Bit unnecessary.

I for one think it's GREAT that young feminists are woke enough to have seen the light and are fighting for our long suppressed rights to be choked, beaten, whipped and waterboarded in the privacy of our own bedrooms. /s

submitting to my boyfriend is the only time I’m entirely without responsibilities. For me it’s a place of calm and freedom.

Someone could say that about cutting themselves with a razor-blade though. People use self-harm as a form of emotional release and also describe a sense of calm. But we all know that it's extremely damaging and those who engage in it should seek help through therapy. Why is it different just because you also get sexual pleasure from it? You're still using pain to soothe certain feelings that you have.

everything is negotiated respectfully

yeh but, HURTING PEOPLE IS NOT RESPECTFUL! It's that simple.

terry thank you! I forget what point I was going to make around that but now I can google it without having to scrub my brain.
Flying but that's what I don't understand, the endless boundary-setting. It's almost like you're making parameters while you act 'respectful' (while discussing how you're going to hurt/humiliate/dominate another person) so you can later play-act an experience that is both terrifying and comforting/reassuring?
'[I]f you care enough to go to a flogging workshop and you deliver considerate aftercare etc you're much less dangerous than some bloke who saw a woman getting beaten in a porno and wants to try it on his eager-to-please younger gf.' But to me that's like getting someone to say they want you to hurt them so you can hurt them and pat yourself on the back to say that you all enjoyed it. It's almost more humiliating to reflect on how you said you definitely wanted exactly what you got. And if it goes a little too far, if it's a little too bracing and if you have to use the safeword because it fucking hurt a lot instead of just some, that's all worked out well according to BDSM parameters. And who would listen anyway if you felt upset about it, because after all you'd asked for it.
What I mean is that they say it's all respectful and everyone gets what they want because safewords but who knows? If your sex life involves a certain amount of pain is pleasure/black is white, how do you defend yourself against violence? I just don't buy it that doms are all super-sensitive and woke and no one ever gets a little too much, in fact I'd bet that some of them pride themselves on giving a little too much, just going that extra mile to make sure everyone has a really exceptional experience.
Btw I'm really interested in this discussion. I've never discussed this in a properly feminist space before.

fighting for our long suppressed rights to be choked, beaten, whipped and waterboarded in the privacy of our own bedrooms
Sarcasm aside, has there ever really been any threat to people's freedom to do ouchy things to each other? I'm thinking of Fae's handwringing that extreme extreme extreme porn was to be banned - but aside from that there's never really been any attempt to police what a straight couple do to each other, or am I wrong?
I guess what I'm asking is whether the libertarians have any point?

FlyingOink, that's an interesting study. But it asks preferred roles with 75%+ women saying they prefer to be subs, only 8% say they prefer to be doms. Interesting that the male side of the preference shows less than 50% prefer to be doms and over a 3rd prefer to be subs. Seems to be an imbalance in the survey... Or not everyone plays the role they prefer?

We easily recognise that revelling in cruelty in non-sexual situations is not a characteristic of a good person. I do not think adding sex to the equation changes anything at all.

Agree.

It's almost more humiliating to reflect on how you said you definitely wanted exactly what you got. And if it goes a little too far, if it's a little too bracing and if you have to use the safeword because it fucking hurt a lot instead of just some, that's all worked out well according to BDSM parameters. And who would listen anyway if you felt upset about it, because after all you'd asked for it.
That's a bloody good point.

Funky yes, this exactly.
I'm agoraphobic and staying home all day is the way I soothe myself but I'm not touting it as a form of therapy. :)

Lichtie
I read another couple of links and anecdotally being submissive was favoured across the board, but more strongly by women.

Anybody who really thinks that violent sex is liberating etc etc ask yourself how you would feel if your children sought that kind of relationship. What do you want for your kids? Nobody would say BDSM. For very good reason.

A lot of people believe that what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home, is none of your business.
Obviously, some people believe we should police what people do ‘for the greater good’
I accept I’m in the minority on MN but I’ve never been a fan of a nanny state.
If someone does something without consent, it’s assault. Whether they agreed to the initial sex and it was taken too far, still assault, they didn’t stop when they said too, still assault. Two adults doing what both parties want to do and have agreed to do with safe practices - no one else’s business
BDSM is usually carried out in a safe way, with codewords and understandings. If it’s taken too far then it becomes assault.

Someone could say that about cutting themselves with a razor-blade though. People use self-harm as a form of emotional release and also describe a sense of calm. But we all know that it's extremely damaging and those who engage in it should seek help through therapy.
Probably. But you could say the same of being promiscuous, of binging and purging, of smoking, of drinking to excess, of using illegal drugs, of masturbating too frequently (especially to porn). People do a lot of self-harming in an attempt to self-soothe.
The issue isn't the masochist, it's the sadist, surely? The sadist is the dealer.

I think the 50 shades of crap is a red herring. The people reading it were really fantasising about a billionaire boyfriend and if it involved a bit of pain to access the free credit card well... no pain no gain.
That's my take on it. But sadly I do think the marketing success has been misinterpreted (wilfully or lazily) as meaning large numbers of women want nothing more than a good beating.

BDSM is usually carried out in a safe way, with codewords and understandings

Yeh. Cool. Empowering. Choicy choicy etc

I do find it fascinating that people who clearly have no understanding or experience with something, feel they are best equipped to judge what it entails and what is acceptable within it. Found the below article interesting:

medium.com/@lachristagreco/bdsm-feminism-the-two-can-coexist-6f06977f291e

Going back to the OP, is there any way to change the law so the onus is on the accused to prove consent?
The current assumptions just don't work. The more implausible it is that an individual would consent to something, the higher the burden of proof required.
There will always be ways around it, of course. Coercion to sign porn contracts shows us that.
Financial obligations maybe? As in, if you choke this girl and she suffers brain damage from lack of oxygen, you are criminally charged and required to contribute financially to her care - regardless of consent - without bankruptcy being an option, like how non-payment of child support is a imprisonable offence in the US.
It's blunt, but I think it might focus people's mind on their responsibilities when carrying out dangerous activities. Fuck up, lose your house. Now how kinky do you feel?

The issue isn't the masochist, it's the sadist, surely? The sadist is the dealer.

Of course. But those who defend BDSM argue that it's all cool because the masochist consents to it. So I was pointing out that when people engage in other self-harming behaviours, we don't say it's cool and that people have the choice to slash their arms or take dangerous drugs. Instead, we tell them to get help to work out why they want to engage in that behaviour. Yet when someone claims to get off on being seriously injured during sex, we suddenly say that this is a totally free choice that should be respected and cannot be criticised because it would be kink-shaming.